The Legal Flaw With Ditching DACA Administrative Procedure Act Magna Carta

Part 2, from,Who Are The Founders For DACA? ,President Donald Trump’s decision to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program has been criticized, by Democrats and Republicans alike, as “cruel,” “inhumane” and “unconscionable.” It is also quite likely illegal. The decision is being implemented in a way that appears to violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and the courts might well block the Trump administration’s action on those grounds.

 The Administrative Procedure Act, sometimes called the “Magna Carta of administrative law,” is a 1946 statute that governs hundreds of federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. It requires that agencies go through a process known as “notice and comment” before issuing, amending or repealing “substantive rules.” As part of that process, the agency must publish proposed actions in the Federal Register and then give the public at least 30 days to submit feedback. When it finalizes its proposal, the agency must respond to issues raised by the public comments and must explain why it settled upon the course of action that it chose. The explanation must show why the agency’s action is reasonable and not “arbitrary” or “capricious.”

 In hundreds of cases, the federal courts have had to decide what counts as a “substantive rule” to which the notice-and-comment requirement applies. In a nutshell, a substantive rule is an agency action that alters the rights or interests of parties, changes the background regulatory regime and has a present and binding effect. Sometimes, agencies will take actions that do all of these things but are labeled as “policy statements” rather than “substantive rules.” In those cases, federal courts will block the agency from carrying through on its policy until it goes through the notice-and-comment process.

 That’s what’s likely to happen here. On Tuesday, Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke sent a memo to other officials in her department regarding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. Since its inception in 2012, DACA has allowed more than 800,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States before their 16th birthday to obtain work permits and certain other benefits. Immigrants eligible for DACA, known as Dreamers, must file an application with DHS and must seek renewal of their status every two years.

 That will now change. Duke’s memo says that “[e]ffective immediately,” DHS will “reject all DACA initial requests” filed after Tuesday. It goes on to say that the department will “reject all DACA renewal requests” received after October 5 of this year. The memo has all the signs of a substantive rule. It alters the rights of Dreamers, who now cannot obtain work permits and other privileges associated with deferred action status (such as Social Security benefits). In so doing, it changes the background regulatory regime. And as the memo makes clear, it has a present and binding effect on DHS officials and on hundreds of thousands of Dreamers.

 Since it announces a substantive rule, the memo is subject to the notice-and-comment requirement. But DHS has given no indication that it intends to go through the notice-and-comment process here. Instead, Acting Secretary Duke has moved ahead without giving the public 30 days to submit feedback. That’s a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it would give a federal court a basis for blocking the department from carrying through on its new substantive rule.

 There is, to be sure, a wrinkle in this argument. The wrinkle is that then- DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano did not go through notice and comment when she announced the DACA policy by memorandum back in 2012. The Trump administration will likely say that if DACA didn’t need to go through notice and comment initially, then DHS shouldn’t have to go through notice and comment now when it rescinds DACA. And if DACA ­did­­ need to go through notice and comment initially, then DACA itself is procedurally invalid and should be set aside on those grounds.

Views: 151

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lets see if they can slap this around again, nice real nice.

Yep,

LOL Tif

I have read all three of the DACA Information posted here, I am puzzled why the reports did not include all the information?

 Thank you Tif for making a honest report.

Your welcome.

LOL Tif

The Administrative Procedures Act doesn't provide the President or the Administration with the right to VIOLATE THE STATUTORY LAW... it allows the Administration to promulgate regulations and  procedures that aid in implementing the laws as written... nothing more.

Mr. Nelson,

 The Administrative Procedures Act, is not what is being challenged, President Trump, has turned this issue over to Congress for a Convention of States, something that Obama, refused to do.

 It is now in the hands of Congress, Trump gave then the middle finger, And as of today, DACA is still in part blocked.

 The Constitutional Authority has all ways been in a Convention, and one man even the President Of The United States is not above the Constitution. This goes for the EU, and them within the United Nations.

Good morning Ronald,

 Its Freezing, totally cold this morning. As for The Administrative Procedures Act, I kind of shared that the left nuts was using the Magna Carta, as a Ruling Class "ding bat's" way in laws, but that will be shared in a few.

LOL Tif

Now, this is how I found out about this blog and the lefty nutty Magna Carta, I was nosey...:)

How The DACA Dump Might Be Ditched By The Courts- YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lno6WDq_fjw

There is area under the video, so I followed the links to this blog: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/the-legal-flaw-w...

The I cased searched this Google "

Article 39 of Magna Carta in particular stands at the head of our constitutional understanding of the due process of law. It barred prerogative or administrative adjudication, by which rulers evaded the regular processes of the courts.Mar 23, 2016": https://www.google.com/search?q=Magna+Carta+of+Administrative+Law&a...

I have check into the sites you presented, you are correct in this presentation.

Thank you Mrs. Morgan, I will need to read more about this.

Part 2 In Your Face

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Al Goodwyn

ALERT ALERT

Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service